Infringment V Stealing - The Importance Of Correct Terminology

Thanks!

You're welcome, Rose

You are the writer. I'd suck at writing that up. Beautifully said.

Definitions, especially legal definitions, are very important. So thank you very much Abbie for your post.

May I add that the copyright laws of most countries are based on an international treaty, which is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO. I believe that 124 countries are a member. (Have to double check that) in the US, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act DMCA (“take down notices”) most are familiar with, is one aspect of that treaty.

This also means that even though there are some minor differences among the member countries, copyright protection ( incl the legal definitions) is basically the same in all the member countries

Considering FAA has contributors from all over, I thought it might be useful additional info.

In the US you have to register your copyrights (or should). In the UK we don't have to.

In the US you don’t either. It is an option.

It is useful if you have to go to court. There is a better chance to receive statutory damages if it gets to that point.

Other than that, there is no real advantage

Thank you, Abbie.......for such clarity, and so well presented, understandable, and, to me, no surprises there. !!

Registration of the copyrights here gets you statutory damages if proven. The economic damages are harder to prove. Non-registered images have only the option of economic damages. There has to be a dollar lost to get a dollar decision against the defendant.

Statutory damages start at $30k. If the defendant has written to you and you deny him any use of the images that is evidence for five times the amount up to $150k. You can sue for economic damages as well. Practically speaking lawyers want to mostly negotiate the statutory damages of $30k down to a steep licensing fee so to speak. That usually means no one has to go to court. The court was just used as leverage.

Awesome discussion thread.

Several weeks ago, I ran into PETER PAN, and I took his photo. :)
And, it got me thinking, and I did a bit of research.

Rudy Umans is right about " . . . an international treaty, which is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO."

Turns out PETER PAN is complicated.

Author: Author, J. M. Barrie (1860 – 1937)
Sculptor: Sir George Frampton R.A. (1860 – 1928) ~ of the original statue in Kensington Gardens, London, U.K., erected in 1912.

There are seven statues cast from the original mould. The other six are located in:
• Egmont Park, Brussels, Belgium, erected in 1924
• Bowring Park, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, Bowring Park, erected in 1925
• Johnson Park, Camden, New Jersey, United States, erected in 1926
• Queens Gardens, Perth, Western Australia, erected in 1927
• Sefton Park, Liverpool, England, erected in 1928
• Glenn Gould Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, erected in 1929

Below are my notes that I collected, by copy & paste, ~ yeah copy & paste, true information, an example of copyright, that I am sharing with you.:

Ownership of the Peter Pan works Copyright laws vary from country to country.

In 1929, Barrie unexpectedly, gifted his copyright of Peter Pan to GOSH/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.

United Kingdom
The UK copyright originally expired at the end of 1987: 50 years after Barrie's death, which was the term at that time. A few people started to take advantage of that, but there was no big rush to exploit the character. The biggest impact of this expiration was that GOSH/Great Ormond Street Hospital could no longer charge royalties for performance of the play, which has remained very popular in the UK. This came to the attention of former Prime Minister James Callaghan (still a Member of Parliament), who sponsored a bill granting GOSH a perpetual extension of some of the rights to the work, specifically the right to royalties for any performance, publication, or adaptation of the play. This is not a true perpetual copyright however, as it does not grant the hospital creative control over the use of the material, nor the right to refuse permission to use it. The law also does not cover the Peter Pan section of The Little White Bird, which pre-dates the play and was not therefore an "adaptation" of it. The exact phrasing is in section 301 of, and Schedule 6 to, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988:
301. The provisions of Schedule 6 have effect for conferring on trustees for the benefit of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, a right to a royalty in respect of the public performance, commercial publication, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service of the play 'Peter Pan' by Sir James Matthew Barrie, or of any adaptation of that work, notwithstanding that copyright in the work expired on 31 December 1987.
This became moot in 1995, when a directive to harmonize copyright laws within the EU settled on 70 years for all member countries. (Most were already at 70 years, several were shorter, and Spain's was longer.) Although it's generally not accepted to take something that's in the public domain and place it back under copyright, they did. So Barrie's works went back under copyright protection (Peter Pan belonging to GOSH, the rest to his heirs) through December 31, 2007. The following day they became public domain again, with the provision that GOSH still gets to charge performance and publication royalties on the play within the UK.
There was some dispute with GOSH over just how broad their rights still were. They blustered about Lost Girls, a pornographic graphic novel by Alan Moore and Melinda Gebbie featuring Wendy Darling, which was published in the US a year or so before their UK copyright expired. Top Shelf Publications made an agreement with GOSH to hold off on publishing a UK edition until 2008, then went ahead.

United States
The laws are different in the US Under the Berne Convention, the copyright to Peter Pan transferred to GOSH just like in the UK, but the clock started ticking on its expiration long before Barrie died. When The Little White Bird was written, US copyrights lasted at most 42 years after publication, but this was extended to 56 years in 1909, so the copyright to LWB expired at the end of 1958. But that's not the version of Peter Pan that most people know and love, so that made little difference in terms of exploiting the character. The play and the original play Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up were was written and performed in 1904, but it wasn't published, so the clock didn't start ticking. In 1911, Peter and Wendy was published, in New York as well as London, and that is the story and characters that most people identify as "Peter Pan". The copyright to that book expired at the end of 1967.
However, the script of the play itself – which Barrie had continued to revise and add to – was not published until 1928, which meant that this version was still under copyright in 1978, when Congress extended the term from 56 years to 75. Which meant it was still under copyright when they did it again in 2003, to 95 years. The stage-play version of the story will not enter the public domain in the US until 2023. formerly used this as grounds to claim a blanket copyright to "Peter Pan", which led to some confrontations. Canadian small-press novelist J. E. Somma and GOSH settled out of court over her sequel After the Rain, A New Adventure for Peter Pan. Disney was a long-time licensee to the animation rights, but published Dave Barry's and Ridley Pearson's Peter and the Starcatchers in the US, defying GOSH's broad claim of copyright.
GOSH now acknowledges that the copyright for the novel version of the story has expired in the United States, and with it the copyright for the characters themselves. GOSH does still assert a copyright to the published version of the script, though they've expressed a lack of interest in pursuing someone who might include (copyrighted) bits from the play in an adaptation of the (public domain) novel. The film rights to the play have been licensed to Columbia/Sony (makers of the 2003 film) for the duration of that copyright.

Other jurisdictions
The original versions of the play and novel are in the public domain in all countries where the term of copyright is 70 years (or less) after the death of the creators. This includes the European Union (except Spain), Australia, Canada, and most other countries. Afghanistan and Ethiopia do not have copyright laws of their own or recognize any international copyright treaties.

However, the work is still under copyright in several countries: until 2013 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, where copyright lasts 75 years after the author's death; in Colombia and Spain until 2018, where the applicable term is 80 years after death; and in Mexico until 2038, where the term is 100 years after death. (It would also be under copyright in Cote d'Ivoire, Guatemala, and Honduras, but these countries recognize "the rule of the shorter term", which means that the term of the country of origin applies if it's shorter than their local term.) In these countries, GOSH is still the legal owner of Barrie's Peter Pan books and play.

Derivative works
Whether it's based on a work under copyright or in the public domain, any time someone creates a new adaptation, the copyright clock on everything they added gets set to zero years. So the dialog, the visual designs, the songs, and everything else that Disney added in their 1953 animated adaptation is still under copyright in the US, and will be through 2048 (95 years). In most other countries, it'll be 70 years after the deaths of the last director, I think, which puts it around 2060. A long time.

Trademark
Trademark is a different beast. There is no time limit on a trademark: as long as you use it, you get to keep it. On the other hand, trademark rights are more limited than copyrights. All they cover is the right to use certain logos and product names in certain categories of business. What can and can't be trademarked is complicated, but there aren't a lot of trademark rights to be found in Neverland. The name Neverland has been in generic use for so long that it'd be hard to enforce as a trademark. The name Peter Pan has been registered as a trademark for things like peanut butter and bus lines, but that doesn't prevent anyone from using the name in a new novel about the character. As for putting the name in the title of a new work... that's starting to get touchy. And if you choose to swim in those waters, you'll need to watch out for both deep-pocketed claimants to the name: GOSH/Great Ormond Street Hospital and Disney.


Conclusion
under copyright:
until 2038, Mexico, ~ 100 years after death, = In this country, GOSH is still the legal owner of Barrie's Peter Pan books and play.
until 2023, U.S.
until 2018 in Colombia and Spain, ~ 80 years after death
until 2013 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, ~ 75 years after the author's death

In the public domain:
original versions of the play and novel, ~ 70 years (or less) after the death of the creators. This includes:
European Union (except Spain),
Australia,
Canada,
and most other countries.

Afghanistan and Ethiopia do not have copyright laws of their own or recognize any international copyright treaties.

You ran into "Peter Pan"?

Yeah! ~Well, the statue.

Talking about registering your work, as of Jan 2024 I will register most of my unpublished work with the Library of Congress. (Registering already published work is possible, but pretty much useless) I will do that as 2 dimensional art and not as photos, which is separate category

I don’t produce that much so it is financially feasible for me

I recommend to look into this if it something for you or not.

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/

Maria, snap!! When a girl! (Kensington park)

Thank you everyone for your input

I'd like to agree but I can't. Because why in its technical definition they aren't stealing it like some kind of hacker, they are stealing your identity through the image. When an AI says - make this in the style of this artist, they are looking at your work it took, and are basically stealing your method, choices, etc. I think in the case of AI stealing is the right word. Is it court supported? Hard to say, it depends if the judge understands that the style is the important part and not so much the image they made.

Infringement is more like they took your image and are simply using it straight out, they aren't using it for extreme direct influence to make their art look like your art. That's the one big thing I hate about AI, is that they can make it look like an artists work and you don't have control over how much of it they use. Its not really an inspiration of that work, its the identity they are taking.


I am curious though as a side point, when I take someones picture with my camera, am I stealing their soul? Or just infringing on it? :)


----Mike Savad

Mike,

You still have your art and your art sales if your copyright is infringed. You do not have your oil painting if it is stolen.

Copying is the issue. You sell copies. You license copies. Others infringe if they sell your images as well as you.

two google results

What is the best definition of infringe?
1. : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

What is the federal definition of theft?
Definition. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines larceny-theft as the unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the possession or constructive possession of another.

I will not debate the legal terms. So far this subject was many times discussed. Just following the logical debate... we (most of us) are not lawyers.

So..when an oil painting is stolen, it is not the canvas and the paint which are the value...but the information which are carried by them.
Infringement refers to the law...something provided by legislation was infringed. So any unlawful act or non-act is an infringement. What really matters and what causes the factual prejudice is the action. Getting non-authorized possession technically speaking and in any traditional, cultural understanding is a theft...and the perpetrator is a thief. That is elementary logic. Prove me wrong please.

and Mike has his point: take (copy and use without authorization) somebody's identity...we call it a theft...identity theft ..why don't we call it 'infringement' of idk which law??

I strongly suggest calling your law makers if you do not agree with them. Otherwise my post stands. Thank you

Last time I look, ~ in Canada you don't have to register your work.

But, like Rudy, said: "It is useful if you have to go to court." In Canada, they also mentioned it.

I register, only 3 of my artwork, just to see how the system works. Your information goes into a database. And I received a certificate, for each work, ~ which is kinda of cool. It made my day.

It will be too expensive to register, every art work. But I do recommend to register at least one piece of your work.

From time to time, one should also check for any amendments within your own country, about copyright laws, just for your information.


*I guess, by 1st of January 2024, I could post my PETER PAN Photograph, in FAA. Unless, there is something that I'm not aware of.

Interesting tidbits about Peter Pan. But what about the peanut butter? In the US there is a peanut butter brand named Peter Pan. I'm pretty sure they have it trademarked.
?

There was a drugstore near me that called themselves peter pan, and when a restaurant opened by the same name, the pharmacy sued them and they renamed their place to peter pank.... Lol.


----Mike Savad

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write this thread, Abbie. I really don't know where you find the time to all you do. :-)

The intent of language is to convey ideas from person to person.
Words have meaning in context or the common environment in which they are uttered.

In a brick and mortar art museum, if a person says, their art was stolen, then obviously the physical work was taken by someone without consent.

On a POD site where nothing but digital imagery is in question, when someone states their art has been stolen, it is understood their art is being used without the consent of the person making the declaration.

Of cource we could all police everyone else's semantics. That sounds like a lot of fun!

I did group registrations for some 600 works including 200 animations. The cost is about $2200. The animations were just ten at a time for a cost of $1100 at a rate of $55 per group. The images were much less expensive allowed in larger groups. The grouping of images has shifted now to photographs.

Drew that really is fair enough. The person who says that to us is not discussing it with a lawyer.

It is important in setting the tone in any conversation that you hope to come to some amicable agreement.

Calling someone a thief whom you wish to have a civil discussion with, hoping to solve a problem, is not a good way to start out.

I bet two-thirds of the copyright infringements are accidental. Calling the newsletter editor of some church's ladies' aid society is just something I cringe at.

So, no, they have stolen nothing, not even one's identity.

Never mind

Floyd,

I have a root canal coming up. My regular dentist is semi-retired. He is a great guy.

He was very unsure if the tooth was cracked. A cracked tooth can not have a root canal. He could not find a crack. I got a second opinion and that doctor could not find a crack.

My dad a doctor is saying he likes doctors aged 60 and up. He will go to a doctor 50 and up. It is a matter of experience. That level-headed demeanor you are discussing. Not insulting someone going through the door. A doctor aged 50 and up has a lot more experience than what is in a textbook.

I had a call into the first dentist to see if he'd do my root canal. He will get back in the office on Monday. His end of the week in the business.

And on that note